blogenlust
9.08.2004

Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide


Bush Doctrine, v.2.0
MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying. "With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes," General Yuri Baluyevsky said Wednesday. Baluyevsky added that Russia's choice of action "will be determined by the concrete situation where ever it may be in the world. "Military action is the last resort in the fight agaisnt terrorism."
Sweet. Before we know it, China will be using their own pre-emptive strategy on Taiwan, North Korea will pre-empt South Korea, Israel will pre-empt Iran, and India will pre-empt Pakistan. Did I forget anyone? Oh yeah, we'll pre-empt Syria and/or Iran. In all seriousness, though, this is why I didn't like the policy of pre-emption in the first place. It is a dangerous policy with an extremely slippery slope. If you allow any nation-state to use pre-emptive force, you lose all illusions of international order, which itself should be used to determine the conduct that necessitates military force. Certainly, there is a problem between Russia and Chechnya, but that is an internal problem. Pre-emptively attacking terrorist bases around the world will do nothing to alleviate the very real problem between Chechen rebels (terrorists, whatever) and Moscow. It will just continue a bad precedent, which will give further confidence to countries we don't want using pre-emptive attacks. And it isn't like we weren't warned about this possibility: Bill Clinton, February 12, 2003:
Reason number one is, no matter how we cut it, if we go in alone, or even with a lot of allies, but with substantial opposition in the UN, then our critics will say this is a preemptive attack, not a police action to enforce the UN resolution. Then have we set a precedent we'll hate to live with. What if Russia says, "I want to go into Georgia to get Chechen terrorists." Or China says, "I'm worried about separatism in Taiwan. Even you admit it's ours. I think I better shell them." Or India says, "I'm worried about the Al Qaeda getting a hold of the Pakistani nuclear forces, so I think we better take them out." So it's very important that we get as close as possible, if God forbid we have to have military action, to looking like we are the police enforcers of the United Nations Resolution to spread the risks of this.